It’s really important that anyone who is in charge of the safety of an institution — a university campus, for example — maintain an updated, working knowledge of how weather warnings work. Tweets sent today by Indiana University today could lead one to believe that its campus safety staff could benefit from some education in that area.
At 1:19 p.m. EST, the Indianapolis office of the National Weather Service (NWS) issued a tornado warning that included a portion of southern Monroe County, Indiana. The warning came with a polygon that clearly showed that the IU campus was not included.
In addition, the text of the warning indicated that “a severe thunderstorm capable of producing a tornado was located 12 miles northwest of Bedford, moving east at 30 mph.” In other words, the storm was not moving toward Bloomington or the IU campus (which is why NWS meteorologists drew the polygon as they did).
Six minutes after the NWS issued the warning, IU sent a tweet at 1:25 regarding what it called a “tornado warning for Bloomington.”
Update: National Weather Service has issued a Tornado Warning for Bloomington. Seek shelter immediately. Avoid windows and doors.
— Indiana University (@IUBloomington) November 5, 2017
Cody Kirkpatrick, an IU lecturer in atmospheric science, attempted to clarify IU’s tweet:
There is no tornado warning for Bloomington. The possible tornado is 12 miles south of town, and moving east. No tornado threat to campus. https://t.co/LDpHQed8nT
— Cody Kirkpatrick (@codykirkpatrick) November 5, 2017
The IU Twitter account replied:
Please don't argue with the warning system. Warnings affect the entire county until notified otherwise.
— Indiana University (@IUBloomington) November 5, 2017
Dr. Kirkpatrick knew what he was talking about. Those sending tweets on behalf of IU demonstrated ignorance of the National Weather Service’s “storm-based warning” system. When the NWS implemented that system a decade ago, it replaced the county-wide warnings to which IU’s tweet refers, with warnings based on polygons that indicate where the actual risk is.
In subsequent tweets, Dr. Kirkpatrick attempted to point that out, as well as the fact that IU’s original tweet was ambiguous. IU’s response:
We act based on information from the emergency alert system. Better safe than sorry.
— Indiana University (@IUBloomington) November 5, 2017
But is warning people who are not at risk really better than warning only people who are truly at risk? Is doing so truly “safe,” or does it exacerbate existing challenges with getting people to respond appropriately to warnings?
The people at any institution like IU, who are in charge of disseminating public safety information, would do well to take full advantage of the informational resources that exist among their own faculty. Doing so could lead to better weather safety communications in the future.